Re: ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES FOR ROLE is broken

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Essentially the argument for allowing this without a permissions check
> is "I'm not really doing anything to the schema, just preconfiguring the
> rights that will be attached to a new object if I later (successfully)
> create one in this schema".

Makes sense to me; if we were going to do something, I'd say a warning
would be better, but I'm alright with nothing too.

> Thoughts?  If we change this, should we back-patch it?  I'm inclined to
> think it's a bug (especially if the restore-ordering hazard is real)
> so we should back-patch.

Agreed.
Thanks,
    Stephen